Impeachment

Mr. Deez said:
I'd watch this hearing right now, but Deez, Jr. wants to watch Curious George instead, and frankly that sounds more interesting. I might watch some of it after he goes to bed, and I think I may need to drink some beer while I watch.
Click to expand...

For you Deez to make up for the past:
 
Do Dems really think it is illegal and impeachable for a President to change ambassadors?

Because every Dem president who has ever been and ever will be has and will do that again

It's quite a precedent for them to be setting
 
Mr. Deez said:
I'd watch this hearing right now, but Deez, Jr. wants to watch Curious George instead, and frankly that sounds more interesting. I might watch some of it after he goes to bed, and I think I may need to drink some beer while I watch.
Click to expand...

He might be the next witness, do your prep work
 
Joe Fan said:
Do Dems really think it is illegal and impeachable for a President to change ambassadors?

Because every Dem president who has ever been and ever will be has and will do that again

It's quite a precedent for them to be setting
Click to expand...
They milk these gubment jobs and now she and the others are crying saying gee whiz how can the President be allowed to do this?
 
Mr. Deez said:
It doesn't say it has to be President being bribed. However, the statutory definition is much more extensive and therefore much dicier than the Webster's definition. See 18 U.S.C. Sec. 201.
Click to expand...
Okay, but what about framer intent if Pelosi wants to link bribery with the constitution? I guess she could have it both ways (that is, a word found in the constitution and the modern criminal statute for bribery).
 
"Have you ever heard of another President removing an Ambassador based on allegations...."

Again, the point. Trump is doing things differently. What is criminal about that?
 
horninchicago said:
She just continues to make the case for her removal by complaint over and over about how bad Trump's policy is. You can't make this up.

I hope the Rs ask why Ukraine's borders and security are more important than on our southern border.
Click to expand...

I’m asking myself, is she there about the impeachment or is this an appeal about her job she lost? Why is she even testifying? Was she in the room?

Of course so far she hasn’t been cross examined yet so waiting patiently for the truth of her being exposed and why she was booted from her position. You know, since this has been made all about her.
 
And there it is...

She "felt" threatened. Trump said she was going to go through some things. Wow, this woman is who should be trusted with Ukraine policy according, seemingly, to the Dems?
 
horninchicago said:
They milk these gubment jobs and now she and the others are crying saying gee whiz how can the President be allowed to do this?
Click to expand...

I actually criticized Trump for this early
I argued he should have cleared the deck of all the Obama holdovers at once
He didnt
And lived to regret it
 
Joe Fan said:
I actually criticized Trump for this early
I argued he should have cleared the deck of all the Obama holdovers at once
He didnt
And lived to regret it
Click to expand...
Yes but had he done that he would have been impeached right away because after all it would be his doing it.
 
I am confused> Dems etc are saying governments should not interfere in other country's affairs
but the Dem lawyer just asked her if part of her job in Ukraine was to clean up the corruption in the Presecutor General's office. She said yes?? Sounds like interference to me.
This is all about playing on her earnest innocence which makes Orange Man bad.
 
mchammer said:
Okay, but what about framer intent if Pelosi wants to link bribery with the constitution? I guess she could have it both ways (that is, a word found in the constitution and the modern criminal statute for bribery).
Click to expand...

I don't think it's a stretch to believe the framers would have been ok with impeaching the President whether he's the "briber" or the "bribee." The Constitution doesn't specify one way or the other. They're just a hell of a long way away from proving it, especially the intent element.
 
Mr. Deez said:
I don't think it's a stretch to believe the framers would have been ok with impeaching the President whether he's the "briber" or the "bribee." The Constitution doesn't specify one way or the other. They're just a hell of a long way away from proving it, especially the intent element.
Click to expand...

But where was this accusation before? Do you think it suddenly dawned on them or that they realized quid pro quo was floundering so they upped the charge in the middle of it all for the media mileage?
 
Mr. Deez said:
Just out of curiosity, why change now?

Also, why didn't you take as much BS as I did??? I got friggin skewed.
Click to expand...
I wasn't as vigorous in defending my vote. I just went out and voted.

Why change now? Because, **** the Democrats for the way they have behaved since November of 2016.

I dislike our continued insane level of deficit spending under Trump, but I know the Dems won't make it any better, as sure as I know the sun rises in the East. There's not much else about Trump that I haven't appreciated. I'm pleasantly surprised he has worked hard at his America first promises, and it is obvious he knows how to stimulate commerce by getting the government the hell out of the way. In addition to that, he has really pissed off the globalist deep state actors, and my gut tells me that is a very good thing for America and the world.
 
bystander said:
But where was this accusation before? Do you think it suddenly dawned on them or that they realized quid pro quo was floundering so they upped the charge in the middle of it all for the media mileage?
Click to expand...

They're doing it because it sounds worse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-HOGS *
Sat, Nov 16 • 11:00 AM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top